The House, Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Rep. James Garrity (R - Rock 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I move floor amendment (0408h) printed on page 305 in your calendar and I'd like to speak to my motion.

Speaker O'BrienRep. Garrity moves floor amendment (0408h) and is recognized to speak to his motion.

Rep. James Garrity (R - Rock 6)Thank you everyone. This is a friendly amendment and thank you, by the way, for passing the committee amendment a minute ago. Essentially what it does is remove paragraph six from the amendment that we just passed. It removes the utility cost recovery language and it makes the bill more consumer friendly. This is based on some feedback that I picked up while we were doing our executive session. Please vote green on this floor amendment. Thank you.

Speaker O'BrienWill the member yield to a question? The member yields.

Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)Would the Representative be so kind as to explain the outcome with regard to potential taking with this amendment?

Rep. James Garrity (R - Rock 6)Good question. Good question. Yes, this is sort of standard language about utility cost recovery. The utility in question would be Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH). Under RGGI.....Can I talk about RGGI?

Speaker O'BrienIf it is necessary to answer the question, Representative.

Rep. James Garrity (R - Rock 6)Under RGGI, there are different compliance periods in years so the first compliance period went 2009/2010/2011. PSNH had to purchase allowances to emit carbon for period one, but they also had the option in these RGGI carbon auctions to purchase allowances in the last few years for compliance period two, which is 2012/2013/2014. When we repeal RGGI, any of those allowances that PSNH has purchased, they will still have them so originally this language was put in to say that PSNH could recover the cost after RGGI is repealed for the allowances that they purchased when RGGI was in place. Having giving that some analysis, the reason I put this in was because PSNH has the opportunity, even if RGGI is repealed, to sell those allowances in the secondary carbon market. The feeling was they can try to recover their costs through the carbon market. They took the risk in the first place by buying ahead without being told they had to, so I would prefer to err on the side of the consumer because we work for the consumers, we don't work for the utilities.

Speaker O'BrienWill the member yield for an additional question? The member does yield.

Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)Can you further explain who you consulted with before putting this amendment before the body and who agreed with you that this in fact, despite the fact that those allowances might be sold for less than they paid for them, under the provision that they were required to participate in this program by this legislature? In that event, you think that the company should eat those costs?

Speaker O'BrienThe member will suspend. The member is on to her third question. You might want to decide which question.

Rep. James Garrity (R - Rock 6)To be honest with you, anybody who does business in the public sector and does business in a regulated sphere or does business in a place where the government changes every once in awhile, by doing business in the public sector, you are taking a business risk that things will change. If you don't want to take those business risks, don't do business in the public sector. I called someone at the PUC and I called someone at PSNH to float the concept. Did they like the idea? Not necessarily, but again, I don't work for the PUC and I don't work for PSNH. Thank you.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the adoption of floor amendment (0408h). For what reason does the member rise? Will the member yield for another question? The member does yield.

Rep. Beatriz Pastor (D - Graf 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This was Representative Kaen's third question, but it will be my first. Could you please tell us who did you consult with and whether they agreed with the change that you proposed or not?

Rep. James Garrity (R - Rock 6)I just did. I answered that. I told you I consulted with someone over at the PUC and someone at PSNH. Other than that, it was a legend in my own mind.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the adoption of floor amendment (0408h). Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye. All those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and floor amendment (0408h) is adopted. The bill is before the House on the committee recommendation on Ought to Pass with Amendment. The Chair recognizes Rep. Kaen of Lee for remarks.

Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, members of the House and in particular those whom I have known for many years and whom I greatly respect. Several careers ago, I worked as a "research officer" for a bank holding company. Just to give you a sense of how long ago that might have been, it was in the days when they gave out titles rather than pay and the overnight interest rates were 21 to 23%, a little different from today. That was early in my career and my duties, in addition to regulatory compliance for the holding company, included reviewing the annual report to make sure that it went out error free. Well, I didn't have a lot of patience for that. I really had a lot of difficulty even punching numbers into a calculator and getting the same outcome twice, but I worked at it and I learned that it was a really important thing to get things right. You don't want to send something out to the public because it's your face to the world. It's your face to the world when you put something out in writing as yours and I would suggest to you that the legislation that we bring out of the Science, Technology and Energy Committee and then comes before this House and is voted on, you, each one of you should have the confidence as we have had in all the years that I can remember that good work came before it came to this House. It's our face to the world. HB 519-FN was heard in this Hall from 10:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on one day. The next time the committee gathered to deal with this issue, and mind you a number of very intelligent members are new to this committee and new to the subject matter, though some of us have been around for quite some time; it's a complicated subject matter. The next time we met, we met to exec it, and how much discussion took place among committee members? Well, each of us had an opportunity, and I was called on first, to make one statement. There was no exchange across the table. There was no discussion so there was no opportunity for people new to these complicated regulatory issues to even hear and have an exchange about some of the very important objections some of them had to the current legislated RGGI. Well we are not good at forecasting the future, none of us, and you just ask those people on Finance or on Ways and Means if they can figure out where the economy is going to go next and get every single thing right and every estimate right. Maybe there are a few things that need to be tweaked in the process and I heard some really good, very good ideas around the table and I would love to take up those ideas, but there was no opportunity. So, what's the rush? We have a new program in place and it's been in place two years now and we had a raft of people come here and thank us. They testified what use this would have to them and their local communities and there is someone to speak after me about those particulars. I'm sticking to the process. The process included bringing it to this floor and we were given an amendment at the executive session with no chance really to read it or even consider its implications. That got voted on and it's the one on Ought to Pass as Amended. Now, we have another amendment. That, too, has not gotten any input as you just heard, other than the committee chairs. No exchange about the importance of the fact that New Hampshire ratepayers will continue to pay in rates, despite what you read in the press. What I read in the press this morning was absolutely incorrect, I assure you. A lot of the stuff that is coming in is from out of state. The robocalls are full of misinformation. These issues are complicated and should be taken up in the Science, Technology and Energy Committee where there is institutional memory, the connections to the agencies and the support of the Department of Environmental Services and the Public Utilities Commission, all of whom stand at our service to make the changes needed. So, what's the rush? Okay, it's an early bill. We are going to ramrod it through. We'll fix it in the Senate. I think we have a couple more bites at the apple. You think the Senate's got time to stop action and figure out what all the policy implications are? We didn't talk about the policy. What does Finance do? They look at the implications for the budget. They are not charged with looking at the $17 million we will no longer be getting into the state to help reduce our ongoing electric rates. So, what's the rush? Is somebody holding a gun to our heads? Forcing us to jump off a cliff? Because that is what we are doing. We are jumping off a cliff without knowing what the consequences are. You know business people, they make decisions with imperfect information every day and that's because they have to. They have to because time is of the essence. They may lose an opportunity if they don't, but what do we have to lose by getting it right? What do we have to lose? That's all I would like you to think about at the moment. Please, let's do our work. Do we want the Senate to believe what we bring to them? They always have when it's come out of the Science, Technology and Energy Committee. What kind of precedent will this one be? Thank you for your attention and I thank all of you who I know will do the right thing.

Speaker O'BrienThe Chair recognizes Rep. Pastor from Lyme for remarks.

Rep. Beatriz Pastor (D - Graf 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Honorable colleagues. I have two opening statements. The first one is I rise in opposition to HB 519. The second one is that my remarks have a subtitle. The subtitle is let's cut to the chase. That's not going to be an easy task if you think of the 8 hours of testimony that we heard right here barely a week ago or if you look at the majority blurb which is probably the longest blurb I've ever seen in a house calendar. I shall try nonetheless. I could start by answering the basic question which is what is RGGI and as Rep. Kaen has pointed out, it is not an easy question to answer and I will not try to answer it here for the very simple reason that the majority blurb gives you the exact mechanism of how RGGI functions. The issue of the locations, the issue of the allowances, who pays for them, who gets them and what happens with the money that is generated from the fund created by the utilities and electric companies buying the allowances. That's in the majority blurb. I think that instead we should concentrate on a different question or I will be happy to answer questions about what is RGGI if you want to really hear the answer. The question that I really think we have to focus on today is, has it worked? In answering this question, I would like to just tell you that in terms of the reduction of CO2 emissions and in terms of the savings for our businesses and residents, there are some figures out there and I'm going to very briefly quote some of those figures. During the first year reporting period, the executive summary of the New Hampshire Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Fund claims that residents and businesses saved $1.5 million in energy costs and that they reduced CO2 emissions by 4,600 metric tons. In the second year that extends from July 2010 to June 2011, they project $4.2 million in savings for residents and businesses and a reduction of 13,200 tons of CO2. As a lifetime saving, meaning taking into account the way in which the funds generated are invested, they project that it will translate into a savings of $60.6 million savings in energy cost and a reduction of almost 200,000 metric tons of CO2. Those are figures from the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Fund. They are supported by the figures that we have gotten from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and also from some other state agencies. I will not clutter your mind with figures. These are almost the only figures you are going to hear. I will go to the second point, the second issue that is brought up with the discussion with RGGI when one asks has it worked. There is no question that the proceeds from the auctions, that is the RGGI fund, have allowed the state to increase energy efficiency in public buildings, to allow private residents to increase energy efficiency in their own homes, to support cost effective renewable retrofits like the solar water heaters that were supported last year with a program that was run with RGGI funds through the PUC and the Office of Energy and Planning. There is no question that they have allowed us to create new jobs in retrofitting and weatherization at a time when the building industry is really dragging in the state. All that is verifiable. I will not give the figures. If you want the figures, after the session I will be happy to direct you to the places where you can get all that specific information. So, it has fulfilled its original goals. The question is why repeal it? Why are we trying to repeal RGGI if has done all those things? The majority blurb says because it has been raided and it says we told you so. We said at the time that it was set up, the fund, that it could be raided for the general fund and that happened last year. If this is the case, if this is the reason, the solution is surely not to repeal the program, it's to fix it. It's to amend the statute so that that becomes impossible and let me tell you, there will be a lot of Democratic support for that fix. The second reason that is brought up by the majority blurb is, "Because RGGI should never have been enacted to begin with. The science of climate change was far from settled." We've heard that argument over and over again, but that was then and this is now. There is considerable scientific evidence tying CO2 emissions to accelerated climate change. In fact that is, as of now, the dominate position of the scientific community in the US and internationally. Let's face it. There are those who don't believe it. We heard them in testimony during the hearings and we talk to them regularly in committee and elsewhere. This is what I am going to propose. Let's for the sake of the argument give equal weight to both positions. The position that believes in the CO2 connection to climate change and the position that says that climate change is a result of sun cycles or other natural cycles and that we have nothing to do with it. If we do that, if we say that they can be equally right or equally wrong, that moves us into what I would call the uncertainty scenario. The problem is that in the face of that supposed uncertainty the risks of doing nothing are just too great. If the predictions about CO2 related accelerated climate change are correct and we do nothing, by the time we see unquestionable proof the damage may be well catastrophic and what is worse, irreversible. That's it. Now, let me give you an analogy on an uncertain scenario to put this into perspective. There was never any scientific evidence or certainty that the Russians were going to nuke this country during the cold war. There was never any scientific evidence and there was a great deal of uncertainty, yet every US President worth his salt prepared carefully for that possibility in order to minimize the damage. That is common sense and good risk management. It was a wise decision then just as it is a wise decision now to take protective measures against an uncertain but very possible disaster and if you are skeptical about the analogy with the President there is always Noah, isn't there? After all, Noah was in the same position. He was told there was a natural disaster about to occur and he was faced with uncertainty and he didn't know for sure whether it was going to occur or not. He could have looked out of the window and said it doesn't look like it is going to rain and he could have said I don't think that makes sense because it hasn't happened before. He made a different story and he decided to build the Ark and he saved the human race. So, in the face of the reality of making decisions in an uncertainty scenario, I think that what we see is that just as the first reason to repeal RGGI did not hold much water because it amounted to throwing the baby away with the bath water, the second one doesn't hold much water, because acting as though we are certain that something is not going to occur when in fact there is reasonable evidence that it might occur, is an argument for accepted risk taking. When all is said and done there is yet another fundamental reason not to support HB 519 and repeal RGGI and that is a purely economic reason. Listen to our Governor, "Withdrawing from RGGI would have real costs for New Hampshire. Ratepayers would continue to pay $6 million in additional electricity rate. We would lose more than $12 million of funding annually." What this means is very simple. What this means is that from a purely economic view, the people of NH, I and you who will be voting on HB 519 today, only have two options. The first option would continue to pay for RGGI and reap its economic benefits which are estimated at roughly $12 million. The second option would continue to pay for RGGI because we are tied to RGGI for as long as we are tied to ISO and that is regional structure and even though we continue to pay for RGGI we give up all the revenues which we fund to subsidize the ratepayers of other states. Those are our two real choices in this economic time. It seems to me that even in good economic times, giving up $12 million is not a good proposition. In our current situation it seems foolish and bad. So, think about it, please. Think about it and think about the President of the US during the cold war and think about Noah and his boat and his ducks, and his cows and his elephants and think about the reality, not the rhetoric of the very simple choice you are faced with today and please when you have thought about all this, maybe not the boat and the duck, but the rest. When you've thought about all this, press the red button in position to HB 519 so that we can move to recommit the bill and we can study according to the process that Representative Kaen outlined earlier. Thank you for your attention.

Speaker O'BrienWill the member yield for a question. The member does yield. Rep. Tamburello, you may ask your question.

Rep. Daniel Tamburello (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker and thank you Representative for taking my question. I just have a quick inquiry if you don't mind. The cow bill that we recently voted on today, some people in here recognized some research indicates that cows emit more damage to the environment than human activity does. Would you advocate for carbon credits to be required for dairy farmers?

Rep. Beatriz Pastor (D - Graf 12)Do you really want me to answer this question seriously? I will. Would I advocate that? Not at this point, because at this point I am dealing with one very specific issue. That issue is RGGI. As much as I love cows, I don't think that the analogy between the cows and the consumption of fossil fuels really bears scrutiny, not serious scrutiny anyway.

Speaker O'BrienDoes the member yield for another question? The member does yield. Rep. Flanagan, you may inquire,

Rep. Jack Flanagan (R - Hills 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you for taking my question. The question is rather simple. If these projects are so good and have such a great return, why are we paying for it? Why aren't the people who are receiving the benefit paying for this out of their own pockets?

Rep. Beatriz Pastor (D - Graf 12)You mean why is the state giving grants to allow our citizens to carry out energy efficiency improvements?

Rep. Jack Flanagan (R - Hills 5)Correct. If it is so beneficial, why are we paying for it?

Rep. Beatriz Pastor (D - Graf 12)For the same reason that states try to do things for the common good whenever they can. I think that citizens have to help themselves, but it has been the traditional function of states to try to fund things for the common good and if the state decides that cutting carbon emissions, reducing energy costs, breaking our dependency on foreign oil and protecting the planet are causes for the common good, it makes sense for the state to support them.

Speaker O'BrienDoes the member yield to a follow up question. The member does yield.

Rep. Jack Flanagan (R - Hills 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you for taking my question. So the lights that we are installing in Brookline are for the common good?

Rep. Jack Flanagan (R - Hills 5)Brookline received a grant through RGGI for putting in new light fixtures. How is that for the common good?

Rep. Beatriz Pastor (D - Graf 12)Well, any collective action that we take to reduce our energy consumption is going to free us from dependency on fuel that we do not produce, not in the state of New Hampshire and if only in this economic way it makes sense and that is without even talking about the international issues that tie that reduction to what could be national security issues and that's part of the picture.

Speaker O'BrienDoes the member yield for another question? The member does yield.

Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)Representative, wouldn't you also say that every one of us who saves energy, fails to use it, contributes in that we all don't have to then pay for new power plants?

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the body is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Keans from Rochester.

Rep. Sandra Keans (D - Straf 23)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker I rise in opposition to the pending motion and in favor of the minority report of inexpedient to legislate. Mister Speaker, I have been around this House a long time and during all of those years, there have been many important battles. Sometimes I was on the winning side and often on the losing side, however, I always left this chamber believing the issue had had a fair debate on this very floor. Monday was quite an eye opener. I have never seen such a cowardly perpetration pulled on the vulnerable citizens........

Speaker O'BrienThe member will suspend. The member will reserve her remarks to the merits of the bill and not any motivation or actions of a member.

Rep. Sandra Keans (D - Straf 23)This has nothing to do with the motivations of the bill, Mister Speaker. If you will let me continue Mister Speaker you will find out who I am referring to.

Speaker O'BrienThen please proceed without referring to the motives of a member or characterizing their actions.

Rep. Sandra Keans (D - Straf 23)This is not the motives of the bill, but I can assure you that on Monday, many, many vulnerable citizens of my district and I assume some other districts as well had phone calls and I think it's quite ironic on President's Day, just think of that. I wonder what George Washington would have thought of those tactics, sleazy as they are. On Monday......

Speaker O'BrienThe member will suspend. The member will heed the instructions of the Chair in her remarks from this point on. Please proceed.

Rep. Sandra Keans (D - Straf 23)On Monday I received in excess of two dozen robocalls that I can verify and I actually spoke to six individuals, senior citizens, from my district. Some knew the bill number, others did not. No one knew my phone number and they didn't know my name. Each had received a call from someone they didn't know and with no discussion or explanation were told if they wanted to prevent their electric bills from going up, just push number one on their phone. What a surprise when two of them I actually spoke to and identified myself to, realized, "Oh my gosh, I know you." This was an insidious act to frighten those folks in my district and it was wrong, Mister Speaker. This is not the way we practice democracy in New Hampshire. All the citizens of this state as well as in my district deserve better and I ask you to defeat this bill. Thank you.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is on the majority committee recommendation of Ought to Pass with Amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Garrity of Atkinson for remarks.

Rep. James Garrity (R - Rock 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you fellow members and I rise in support of this bill as amended and will be asking you to press the green button. Mister Speaker, let me start off by saying that I am so honored to be the Chairman of a committee that has eighteen really, really sharp people. It doesn't matter what party they are from. These folks are top notch and I'm not the brightest florescent bulb in that tree, but I do get the benefit of being with them and working with them so I have intense respect for all of them. I am also very much aware that as a Chairman you never stop learning how to do your job better, how to learn from experience and I promise all of you I will never stop learning and trying to be a better Chair and do my job better. Mister Speaker, three years ago when RGGI was approved, I was on this floor arguing against it and the good Representatives were arguing for it. Three years ago when RGGI was approved, the rallying cry was "We must join RGGI or the planet will dry up." Here we are three years later and the rallying cry we've heard from the public hearing and from the emails and everything else is, "We can't lose RGGI or the money will dry up." It's become apparent to all of us, most of us, that RGGI was never really all about the climate, it's all about the money. RGGI involves three kinds of science. RGGI should be repealed now because we should never have joined in the first place. RGGI should be repealed now because its passage three years ago rested on shaky climate science, namely the global warming apocalypse was coming and RGGI would help stop it. The majority believes that climate science is still far from settled. The majority realizes that RGGI is not about the climate. RGGI is all about the money. RGGI should be repealed now because it rests on shaky economics science, namely that the government should collect some money from all of us to redistribute that wealth to a few of us. The majority believes that our constituents' money should remain in their pockets to be spent, saved or invested as they see fit. After all, it's their money, not the governments'. The majority believes that RGGI was a stealth tax hidden in our electric bills. The majority believes that RGGI created the illusion of free money to those who benefited from its funds, but you and I all know there is no such thing as free money. RGGI should be repealed now because it rests on shaky political science, namely that bigger government is better government, that mandates are better than markets, that multi-state entangling alliances are better than New Hampshire citizens finding New Hampshire solutions to New Hampshire challenges. The majority believes in shrinking the scope, size and cost of government, not growing it. The majority believes that New Hampshire should declare its independence from the RGGI alliance so I ask you to think green when you vote. Vote to keep the green hard-earned money in our constituents' pockets. Vote to make other RGGI states green with envy when they hear we have left and vote to repeal the cap and trade scheme by pressing the green button. Thank you.

Speaker O'BrienWill the member yield for a question? The member does yield.

Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Representative, do you believe that it is possible for New Hampshire to cut itself off from the regional electric supply?

Rep. James Garrity (R - Rock 6)No, it's not possible to do that. It is possible for New Hampshire to take care of its own carbon. In fact, you know that New Hampshire had a clean air bill that came way before RGGI that dealt with carbon. RGGI took that over so the next step after we repeal RGGI is to update our clean air act. Thank you.

Speaker O'BrienDoes the member yield for another question? The member yields.

Rep. Rich DiPentima (D - Rock 16)Thank you, Mister Speaker and thank you Representative Garrity for taking my question. In a broader scope, do you believe that climate change is an issue that this legislature should be addressing through legislation separate from the issue of RGGI?

Rep. James Garrity (R - Rock 6)Should climate change be an issue that we are addressing through legislation? Yes, we should be really seriously looking to see whether this whole hype has any teeth to it.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the adoption of the majority committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment. Representative Jasper requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This is a roll call vote. Members will please take their seats. For what reason does the member rise?

Speaker O'BrienThe member is recognized for a motion. Please state your motion.

Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)Mister Speaker, I move to recommit HB 519 to the Committee on Science, Technology and Energy.

Speaker O'BrienThe House will come to order. The motion before the House is to recommit. Does the Representative wish to be heard on her motion?

Rep. Naida Kaen (D - Straf 5)Mister Speaker and members of the House, an issue of this importance deserves a lot of consideration. It has received hardly any and I do appreciate you all listening, but I wonder if you've heard all sides of the issue. One needs committees to banter about the consequences of our actions. One seldom achieves that talking to 400 people in a Hall or 399 without me. You've probably come here with your priorities and I don't blame you, but I think each of us understands how important committee work is and I am implore you to keep the respect of this House and not just pass the issue over the wall. Thank you.

Speaker O'BrienThe Chair recognizes Representative Jasper for remarks.

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know....I know its part of a speech, but it's still part of the question. I know that this is the last day and you all need to know that this is the last day that we can act on this bill because it is an early bill and will be going to a second committee and the effect of this motion would be to kill it. We have also heard nothing here today that would cause us to recommit this bill. This came out of committee with a strong vote of 2 to 1 to pass it with the amendment. There is no reason that we should not do that. Let's deal with the vote, with the bill, get an up or down vote on this and not play games such as this. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the House is the motion to recommit. Are you ready for the question? I heard a roll call. Representative Norelli requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This is a roll call vote. Members will please take their seats. The House will come to order. The question is on the motion of Representative Kaen to recommit. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Representative Jasper for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that there is no reason to recommit this bill and Mister Speaker, if I know the effect of recommitting it would be to prevent us from acting on it this year, would I now vote no by pressing the red button?

Speaker O'BrienThe question before the body is the motion to recommit HB 519 to the Committee on Science, Technology and Energy. The Chair recognizes Representative Norelli for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Terie Norelli (D - Rock 26)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know as an alumna of the great Science, Technology and Energy committee, aware of the wonderful and in-depth work they do on very complex issues, if I know that recommitting this bill to that committee would give them the opportunity to do the serious work that really needs to be done on this bill, regardless of the time deadline, but knowing that the work would be the right work, would I now vote green to recommit this bill to the committee?

Speaker O'BrienThe question is on the motion of Representative Kaen to recommit. This is a roll call vote. If you are favor of recommitting, you will press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 100 members having voted in the affirmative, 250 in the negative, the motion fails. The question before the House is the adoption of the majority committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment. This is a roll call vote. You are in your seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. Levasseur for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Nickolas Levasseur (D - Hills 11)Thank you, Mister Speaker and members of the House. If you know as I know that the process by which we vet all legislation is critical to the democratic process and if you know as I know that this bill was not given the attention and the diligence that is demanded by that process when it is due to an issue of this magnitude? If you know as I know that the committee voted on this bill without fully understanding all of the implications, without a fiscal note before the true economic impacts of RGGI repeal are fully known and if you know as I know that repealing RGGI will not lower electrical rates, it will not save any ratepayer money, but it will slow job growth in the state, it will cause a loss of millions of dollars of efficiency grants and of leverage funds and that these facts alone make repealing RGGI a net loss for our state? If you know as I know that a government that moves too quickly and without all the facts is a government that makes mistakes and causes harm to its people, please push the red button and overturn the committee report?

Speaker O'BrienThe question is on the adoption of the majority committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Jasper for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I believe that neither man nor cow was responsible for global warming and I know this because I read the 1941 US Department of Agriculture report called Climate and Man that explained 70 years ago exactly what we could expect and I know that they were on the mark 70 years ago and they were not attributing it to man, they were attributing it to a natural cycle? Mister Speaker if I know that this committee did take the time they needed because we adopted the comprehensive amendment that they put forward and Mister Speaker if I know that what is really behind RGGI is in fact the money and that if I am not in favor of redistributing the wealth would I now push the green button and vote yes to adopted the committee report?

Speaker O'BrienThis is a roll call vote. If you are in favor of the adoption of the majority committee report of Ought to Pass with Amendment, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 246 members having voted in the affirmative and 104 in the negative, the committee report is adopted. Under the rules of the House, HB 519- FN is referred to the Committee on Finance. REGULAR CALENDAR (CONT'D) HB 612, establishing a commission to study existing septic systems and potential new septic technologies. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. Rep. Frank R. Holden for Science, Technology and Energy: The majority of the committee believes that studying existing septic systems and potential new designs should be done without establishing a special commission. The objective of this bill could best be accomplished by the lakes management advisory committee which has the expertise. Other concerned parties could be included on an ad-hoc basis. Vote 17-1. Committee report adopted. HB 208-FN-L, providing additional per pupil funding for pupils in certain public schools. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. Rep. David W. Hess for Special Committee on Education Funding Reform: The sponsor and supporters of this bill presented persuasive information concerning the diseconomies of scale for our small and very small schools that is consistent with what educational consultants have advised legislative study commissions over the years. However, these same educational consultants have also consistently advised us not to provide supplemental state aid for costs associated with smaller schools. This bill, while well-intentioned, demonstrates the difficulties of quantifying these increased costs by arbitrarily setting the amount of such supplemental aid and by arbitrarily setting the size of the schools to which this aid would be extended. In addition, this bill carries an estimated cost of almost $8 million with no suggestion to where other education spending can be cut to fund this cost. Finally, the committee believes that this and other bills directed at specific components of state aid to education should be considered within a comprehensive review and discussion of this subject, which is ongoing. Vote 11-2. Committee report adopted. HB 238-FN-A, relative to the assessment of the education tax by towns and cities. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. Rep. Andrew Renzullo for the Majority of Special Committee on Education Funding Reform: This bill requires municipalities to assess the education tax on residential and commercial property only after applying a $100,000 exemption to the valuation. This has the intended consequence of shifting the tax burden to higher value properties. According to the sponsors own figures (unverified by the committee), the break-even point would be a house valued at $600,000. Homes of lesser value would have a lower percentage tax, while homes of greater value would have a higher percentage tax. This is the first step toward a graduated property tax. It is an attempt to shift the tax burden to those who are apparently more affluent, or, in other words, "those who can afford it." On philosophical grounds, this is class warfare and is unacceptable. On a practical level, redistribution of the real estate tax could impose significant unintended hardship. In the southern tier, many homes have doubled, tripled or even quadrupled in value over the years. People who bought moderately priced homes years ago, and are now living on fixed retirements, have homes of high assessed value. They cannot, and should not, be required to pay the taxes of others. And finally, this legislature is looking to makes changes in education funding. The education tax (state wide property tax) may or may not be part of any comprehensive plan. Thus any tinkering with the tax structure is, at best, premature. In this case, the tinkering is ill-advised and would result in negative consequences. Vote 10-3. Rep. Gary B. Richardson for the Minority of Special Committee on Education Funding Reform: This bill would provide an exemption of $100,000 from the State Wide Education Property Tax (SWEPT) from the assessed valuation for one principal structure per lot used for residential or commercial purposes. The proposal is revenue neutral meaning that the amount raised by the SWEPT for education would remain unchanged. The exemption would cause an increase in the tax rate from $2.325 per thousand to $2.77 per thousand, but would result in a reduction in taxes for small businesses and residents owning property assessed at less than $625,000, and a minor increase for those residents and businesses assessed at more than $625,000. For example, a residence or business assessed at $1 million would see an increase of $165 annually. The minority believes that this bill would assist people to find basic housing at an affordable cost and encourage small businesses that are the backbone of our economy. The question being adoption of the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate. Reps. Hatch and Gary Richardson spoke against and yielded to questions. Rep. Renzullo spoke in favor. Rep. Ball requested a roll call; sufficiently seconded. YEAS 255 NAYS 91 YEAS 255